We were quick - but why?

[Pure_Ownage]

It was apparent to me that we were much quicker on Sat night than what I have seen in weeks (unless of course my eyes were deceiving me).

The question that has been running through my head since, is were we quicker because owing to forced outs, we had less slow/injured players and a bit more speed, or were we quicker because we moved the ball better and more direct? Or was it both? What does everyone think?

While obviously the senior players like Ling Corey etc will return, I find it a relevant question, because I reckon the best way to win finals, in particular against StFlood, is speed of ball movement into the forward line to prevent them having time to get their flood numbers back, so I wonder what the best way is to ensure we do that the way we did on Sat, particularly in the 2nd quarter.

 

[Belisarius]

Re: We were quick-but why?

Always have to be careful in using a single game to highlight something - as there are just so many variables involved in a team game.

But I saw it the same way - and came to the same conclusion re the Saints.

However P & O - no matter what we think and observe I just cannot believe if Corey and Ling are available they will not be absolutely certainties to play finals. Two great servants of club. But their pace in the midfield concerns me.

 

[Selective Retention]

Re: We were quick-but why?

Lots of reasons that you can throw up.

Most people are on the personnel wagon.

It was also our first game under the roof for 8 weeks.

The lack of defensive pressure from the bulldogs also let us play the handball and run through the corridor game plan at will.

 

[TMS]

Re: We were quick-but why?

A combination of personnel and our skills being spot on, with a lack of same from Dogs in the second quarter.

Anyone who thinks Wojo isn't in our best 22 this year doesn't watch football. We missed him desperately last week. Not saying he was the sole difference, but it was lovely to see him put his foot down.

 

[archilino]

Re: We were quick-but why?

Far superior skills imo, when you can pinpoint 35-50m passes to a running player time and time again foot speed is irrelevant. Speed of ball movement has been out hallmark for 4 years now.

 

[Belisarius]

Re: We were quick-but why?

Far superior skills imo, when you can pinpoint 35-50m passes to a running player time and time again foot speed is irrelevant. Speed of ball movement has been out hallmark for 4 years now.

Yes and no Archilino.

Quick ball movement has been out forte for sure - but that does mean that having quick running players make no or little difference. From my watching Wojo and Ablett typified this against the Dogs when they broke the lines and ran thru the middle - and both moves ended in goals.

It is not an either or thing - you want both.

As far as putting the opposition ball carrier under pressure - being able to move the ball quickly when you have it - makes no difference. Chasing them down does. It effects the kick, helps to rush the opposition ball carrier into a poor decision and miss targets. Mayne even the occasional turn over / free kick.

The modern game is getting quicker - by hand, foot and legs.

 

[archilino]

Re: We were quick-but why?

Yes and no Archilino.

Quick ball movement has been out forte for sure - but that does mean that having quick running players make no or little difference. From my watching Wojo and Ablett typified this against the Dogs when they broke the lines and ran thru the middle - and both moves ended in goals.

It is not an either or thing - you want both.

As far as putting the opposition ball carrier under pressure - being able to move the ball quickly when you have it - makes no difference. Chasing them down does. It effects the kick, helps to rush the opposition ball carrier into a poor decision and miss targets. Mayne even the occasional turn over / free kick.

The modern game is getting quicker - by hand, foot and legs.

Fair call Belisarius, im thinking along the lines off essendon. Who copy our game plan word for word it seems but because of their very poor skill level it fails more often than not.

I would rather be highly skilled with average pace than the opposite, but i understand your point completely. Varcoe sums up your point perfectly

 

[Selective Retention]

Re: We were quick-but why?

Essendon do not copy our game plan.

Bomber built our side from the defense up with accountable football.

Essendon are free wheeling front runners.

 

[oozeboss]

Re: We were quick-but why?

I think a lot of that speed came from players being good enough to know where they should be when. Classic example of this was Selwood's spoil/ recover/ goal in the second quarter, which was made wholly by vision, brains & desire.

And Bomber (and the squad's own collective pride) put enough fire in the bellies to add afterburners to even the slowest of them. The key to the premiership is to keep that fire lit for the next six weeks.

 

[burto]

Re: We were quick-but why?

Partly due to better tackling and blocking by us around the stoppages which allowed our players more space when disposing of the ball. But more importantly, Wojack and Thunt running straight through the middle of the ground.

 

[corio bay]

Re: We were quick-but why?

Having woji and taylor hunt added a huge amount of speed to the team.

And i think PO made a good point with

or were we quicker because we moved the ball better and more direct

I think our ball movement had a lot to do with it.

In the first quarter last weekend it felt like the collingwood game where we were getting stuck at half back with handball after handball eventually turning it over. The second quarter had a completely different feel to it - we were running a lot harder, making smarter moves with the ball and generally playing with more confidence.

Pods seemed to be playing up the ground a lot more too, linking up to the forward line quite nicely.

 

[catters078]

Re: We were quick-but why?

using alot of vacroe and wojcinski through the middle third of the ground is where we improved our leg speed..

its kind of funny, over the last two grand finals varcoe, byrnes, wojcinki and stokes were the players who were the borderline players who missed out on finals, this year they may be the key to winning it for us

 

[i_need_a_pencil]

Re: We were quick-but why?

Work ethic?

We were obviously, to me, trying much harder than last week's game. Working harder for each other and providing more options, although I haven't watched it back yet.

Also, WB went to shambles after the 1st quarter, and their pressure/ our confidence rose.

AND lastly, we had more runners/fitter players out there.

Gotta love it all! Hopefully that kind of pace sets the bar for the rest of the games.

 

[Rosso]

Re: We were quick-but why?

A number of reasons:

First use of the ball. Ottens and Hawkins gave our mids an armchair ride. Otto had 19 and Hawkins 14 in the ruck but it was the hitouts to advantage that started it all. Otto was at 30% and Hawkins at a massive 57%. Yes they weren't against the greatest but gee they got us going.

Defensive pressure. Just getting a hand on the opposition as the dispose of the ball can effect the kick / handball and open the game up with a turnover. The desperation, despite the margin, was fantastic on Saturday and will continue.

Movement. Against the Pies we handballed often to stationary targets when a quick kick may've been a better option. Putting teammates under pressure isn't a great way of moving the ball. Forever playing on just kept the ball in motion and the dogs (renowned for their leg speed) couldn't keep up. Ditto the Bombers a month or so ago.

Possession. You always look faster with the ball than without it.

 

[witsend]

Re: We were quick-but why?

They were slow.

 

[cancat]

Re: We were quick-but why?

Wonder if Bomber was foxing a little and increased training loads before the Collingwood game? We looked flat in general and Hawkins was out on his feet from early in the game.

 

[2minNoodle]

Re: We were quick-but why?

I was surprised how out of sorts the bulldogs looked but they had a hard slog against Adelaide in the wet the week before, so that may have made the cats look faster. And even though the cats had a good win against the swans, the ground was hard up there and some players were sore the next week against the pies.

 

[Sttew]

Combination of WB looking particularly slow and inept, an injection of leg speed by the Cats a la Menzel & Hunt, and steely determination by the Cats (Selwood looked fast...)

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Gonna be interesting this Friday night at the Dome. Carlton troubled us with speed at the 'G earlier in the year. They wanted to hunt us, and we did not dictate the playing terms so well.

I reckon we've worked some kinks out over the past fortnight however. As was said earlier handballing in defence like we did vs Collingwood has been exposed as much too risky, and we'll see more gameplay like we did vs the Dogs.

I reckon we've got things sorted

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Might be sacrilige, but I'd be happy to leave Ling, Lonergan and Corey out, if not for finals then definitely for this week, Carlton having chopped us up with speed and small forwards the last 2 times we played them.

 

[Nasma]

Might be sacrilige, but I'd be happy to leave Ling, Lonergan and Corey out, if not for finals then definitely for this week, Carlton having chopped us up with speed and small forwards the last 2 times we played them.

I'm with you on this.

 

[Poetic Justice]

I third that one also.

 

[Gladbaqs]

Might be sacrilige, but I'd be happy to leave Ling, Lonergan and Corey out, if not for finals then definitely for this week, Carlton having chopped us up with speed and small forwards the last 2 times we played them.

Me too Lunchlady.

Ling and Corey are both one-paced and showing signs of injury and age. The problem is that they are both such proven superstars. I hope we don't end up regretting not having the guts to take a chance with Duncan, T Hunt or Menzel.

 

[meto]

I third that one also.

The Doggies helped that appearance, but all over tackle pressure had something to do with it. The need to improve hardness at the ball after the Collingwood disgrace was another.

I agree Hawkins is a HF Flanker, that can ruck if required, but that's about it.
Still, we need his sizable presence, a couple of marks last week give hope he might be running into some form.

 

[OldStyle2007]

Re: We were quick-but why?

A combination of personnel and our skills being spot on, with a lack of same from Dogs in the second quarter.

Anyone who thinks Wojo isn't in our best 22 this year doesn't watch football. We missed him desperately last week. Not saying he was the sole difference, but it was lovely to see him put his foot down.

Spot on. We simply cannot do without him in the side as he is our only speedy defender

I thought the 2008 GF put this issue about Wojo to bed but some people just don't get it (match committee seemingly included at times !)

I must admit I thought we looked better without Ling and Lonergan and I think we would be crazy to bring Ling, Lonergan, Corey and Rooke and even Blake all back into the team

Those young guys might not have 'paid their dues' to get into the first 22, but I think we really need some extra pace to go up against the high rotation teams like the Dogs and Pies